Developing a Complex Argument

To confuse the audience about the writer's stance.

To demonstrate the writer's comprehensive understanding of the issue, including opposing viewpoints.

To weaken the writer's own argument by acknowledging flaws.

To avoid addressing counterarguments directly.

Ignoring the opposition's claims to maintain a strong stance.

Acknowledging that the opposing side has a valid point, but arguing that it doesn't undermine the main argument.

Presenting evidence that directly contradicts the opposition's claims.

Dismissing the opposition's claims as irrelevant.

It refutes the idea that technology is beneficial.

It concedes that technology can be a distraction, then rebuts the negative implication.

It refutes the claim that technology personalizes learning.

It avoids the counterargument altogether.

To agree with the opposition's point of view.

To demonstrate why the opposing point is not as strong or relevant as it appears.

To ignore the opposing argument completely.

To prove the opposing point is correct.

Acknowledging the other side's point without disagreeing.

Presenting evidence and reasoning to weaken the opponent's claim.

Completely agreeing with the opposing argument.

Changing the subject to avoid the argument.

It concedes a point about the policy's potential benefits.

It rebuts the claim that the policy will boost the economy by presenting contradictory evidence.

It refutes the claim that the policy will boost the economy by proving it wrong.

It supports the claim that the policy will boost the economy.

To show respect for the opposing viewpoint.

To prove that an opposing point is entirely incorrect using evidence and logic.

To find common ground with the opposition.

To ignore the opposing argument.

Acknowledging a small area of agreement with the opponent.

Presenting data and logical reasoning that demonstrates the opponent's claim is false.

Avoiding direct confrontation by changing the subject.

Restating the opponent's claim in a weaker form.

It concedes that video games cause violence.

It rebuts the claim that video games cause violence.

It refutes the claim that video games cause violence with evidence.

It supports the claim that video games cause violence.

Ignoring, dismissing, and accepting.

Conceding, rebutting, and refuting.

Arguing, debating, and proving.

Accepting, ignoring, and proving.